"I take full responsibility" is always referred to the investors and shareholders.
aka "I admit I have done a bad decision when I over hired and I'm correcting it".
It's not a "I take full responsibility" towards the employees or customers.
aka "I admit I have done a bad decision when I over hired and I'm correcting it".
It's not a "I take full responsibility" towards the employees or customers.
Like a surgeon killing a patient “taking full responsibility”…
He still has a job, bonus, and golden parachute. Despite fucking up and hiring way more than needed and upending those lives.
Real responsibility would be leaving in disgrace, or returning his bonus and stock, or something else along those lines.
Why does the financial world’s mentality have to oscillate between cocaine and opium?
Part of being a competent leader is correctly assessing staffing needs of your org. If you suck at upsizing your staffing needs correctly, why should we trust that you don't also suck at downsizing correctly. I have little respect for leaderships that overhire then layoff. I view them as incompetent.
You spilled coffee on the table? Clean it up. That's your responsibility. It doesn't mean you need to be "punished".
In the case of layoffs, taking responsibility might mean having to face the public and the employees with the decision and having to endure the public shaming you, etc. All on behalf of the board and shareholders.
They are taking the responsibility for having overhired and are acting on this responsibility by laying off.
They are not taking responsibility in front of laid off staff in any actionable way but "you can blame me rather than human resources, PMs that cried for more engineers, investors that were looking for signs of growth via head count..." which again is a sign of taking responsibility in front of shareholders, not really employees.